LoginWarning: Spoilers
There are a few assets that drew me into seeing The Woman in Black in the first place. One was to see if Daniel Radcliffe had grown as an actor and whether he would acquit himself well in a cast-against type sort of role. And there is also the support cast, Ciaran Hinds, Janet McTeer, Roger Allam and Shaun Dooley are quite a cast don't you think, and especially that I loved the book, the 1989 TV version and stage play so much. I went to see The Woman in Black a few days ago with my 3 sisters, but I wanted to think about in depth what I thought about the film before writing about it. It was a film that I still can't get out of my head and even just yesterday my sisters and I were having this big discussion about what we liked and comparing it to its other mediums.
Regarding this 2012 film, all of us thought it was very good. It wasn't perfect, no, and it has received and perhaps continue to receive inevitable comparisons to the book which has many engrossing and telling chapters, the stage play which is the most chilling thing I've seen on stage since seeing The Mousetrap and especially the TV version which I regard very highly for its atmosphere and unforgettable conclusion. On its own though, it is a very solid and worthy film and adaptation. For one thing, The Woman in Black is very handsomely mounted. The Victorian period is very evocative in detail with beautifully tailored costumes and meticulous-looking scenery and settings and genuinely effective in atmosphere with the dark old house, spooky sea fog, foreboding marsh and faces at the window. The camera work is also very good with the close-up shock cuts particularly good, and the lighting is dark and atmospheric while never being too dark you can't see what's going on.
The music score I also took to, there is a haunting and hypnotic quality to it that suits the film's tone very well. Likewise with the sound effects mostly, the sudden loud noises and the starting quiet and crescendoing contributed much to the best scares of the film, though the earlier ones were a little obvious and predictable and had the audience laughing rather than biting their nails. Dialogue-wise, it is solid, staying loyal to the period generally and it kept me engaged with Arthur's predicaments and the mystery of The Woman in Black. After my viewing of the film I did have some questions such as why the Woman in Black still took revenge even when the body of her son was returned, but having the discussion with my sisters really helped.
When it comes to the story, it is a timeless one with a chilling atmosphere. The Woman in Black(2012) does a much better-than-expected job with adapting it in a short running time, a vast majority of scares are very atmospheric advantaged by the purposefully glacial pace, more the making-you jump kind than the gory kind, with the Woman in Black gliding down the corridor, the screech at the window, the hanging and the brief glimpse of the woman in black in the creaking rocking chair faring the best of them. Of the children's deaths, the most effective was that of the Fisher Girls, especially in a choreographic sense, just look at how perfectly in time their walking is and how their eyes absolutely make you believe they are in a trance. McTeer's "momentary mental instability" scenes were also very intense and heart-breaking.
Only two scenes weren't so good for me, other from one or two earlier predictable jump scares. One was the death of Lucy, while tragic in circumstance it was clumsily staged and lacked the magnetic quality the choreography of the very first scene did. The other scene, and I think the biggest let down of the film, was the ending. In a sense it was grim but there was also something uplifting and bittersweet to it, for me it juxtaposed too much with the film's overall tone and it was nowhere near as satisfying or as memorable as the conclusion of the 1989 version.
I also think two scenes from the book could have been added, making the film even better, Alice Drablow's funeral which introduced us to the Woman in Black and was one of the book's more telling scenes, and the Whistling scene which is the single creepiest and atmospheric scene of the book, just how it is written is enough to make your heart go in your mouth. This film was fine enough without them, it's just that I was wondering how incredible those two scenes would have been if they were included. The characters engage, Arthur Kipps is likable enough, but I found the Dailys and Woman in Black the film's most interesting characters, Sam Daily is so sympathetic and the Woman in Black is evil incarnate even evoking fear in the scenes she doesn't feature in.
The acting is very good. Daniel Radcliffe while I initially had reservations of whether he was too young for the role acquits himself quite nicely as Arthur, a role that is very cast-against- type, showing melancholy, sensitivity and genuine fright throughout, and this is in the facial expressions alone. Ciaran Hinds is excellent as Sam, and Janet McTeer gives a very moving performance. Roger Allam, Tim McMullan and Shaun Dooley are good in small roles, but other than Hinds and McTeer I was most impressed by Liz White as Jennett/Woman in Black, in a role that is so evil and so omnipresent whether in scenes where she's featured or where she is talked about or in thought White is absolutely terrifying.
All in all, a very good film, not perfect but atmospheric, scary and more than stands its own even if the book, TV version and stage play are superior. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox
The Woman In Black Reviews
The Woman In Black review
Posted : 2 years ago on 1 April 2022 10:39
0 comments, Reply to this entry
An average movie
Posted : 10 years, 2 months ago on 2 February 2014 09:30
It had been a while since I saw a good old fashioned ghost story, plus, I was pretty sure that Nick, my step-son, would be interested so we ended up watching this flick. Personally, I think I was a good choice for Daniel Radcliffe to pick up a project like this one after the massive Harry Potter franchise. Indeed, it is something really different and there wasnât a massive all-star cast behind him (indeed, except maybe for Ciaran Hinds, there was no familiar figures involved) so he really had to carry the whole thing by himself. Eventually, I thought he was quite believable, even though you might argue that he looked a bit young to be a father. Still, while watching this, I couldnât help thinking that an ambitious, reckless and arrogant young man would have been more suited but I guess thatâs how the story was written originally. Above all, the whole thing looked great and you really had a feeling of this time period but, still, the story itself was not really amazing. I mean, it was some pretty standard horror stuff and while it was fairly entertaining, it was also quite forgettable. To conclude, in spite of its flaws, it remains a well made feature and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Bland, not very scary and poorly acted
Posted : 10 years, 4 months ago on 5 December 2013 07:44
'The Woman In Black' was a horror movie that I was looking forward too; in the end it just turned out a fake horror
'The Woman In Black' has very little scare at all, there are about two scares, good sets and costumes but the rest...meh!
Why did they cast Daniel Radcliffe in the lead role; he was way too young and gives a poor performance just like the rest of the cast
I've never read the book or seen the stage show and they're probably not the same anyway (as you can't actually see the horror in the book)
And what a ludicrous beginning three girls walk towards the open window of their house and walk out falling to their deaths , the movie was getting scarier near the end but then the silly ending ruined it Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe's character) dies and wanders off into the light , what oh what was the reason for the poor scares, acting and story?
'The Woman In Black' has very little scare at all, there are about two scares, good sets and costumes but the rest...meh!
Why did they cast Daniel Radcliffe in the lead role; he was way too young and gives a poor performance just like the rest of the cast
I've never read the book or seen the stage show and they're probably not the same anyway (as you can't actually see the horror in the book)
And what a ludicrous beginning three girls walk towards the open window of their house and walk out falling to their deaths , the movie was getting scarier near the end but then the silly ending ruined it Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe's character) dies and wanders off into the light , what oh what was the reason for the poor scares, acting and story?
0 comments, Reply to this entry
The Woman In Black review
Posted : 10 years, 8 months ago on 18 August 2013 08:30
Poor movie. Poor acting, poor pacing, poor plotline and poor scares. They did get the Victorian look right, the sets are very beautiful. The costumes too. Otherwise, not a very good film.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Old School Horror Stuff...
Posted : 11 years, 6 months ago on 7 October 2012 08:20
Daniel Radcliffe desperately needs a change of fortune and I pray it happens soon. After 8 Harry Potter fantasies and 11 years in Hollywood he has grown into a fine young man alright but despite all his dire efforts he is still under the character of Harry Potter on Screen. A very long and successful franchisee does that to you as an actor but he needs to overcome that for his own good. He tries so hard to shed his Harry Potter skin in his latest endeavour Woman in Black but the problem is he hardly looks convincing as a widower father and this basic flaw haunts this interesting plot throughout it's run time.
With Woman in Black Hollywood travels back to old school haunted stories and that really works. The story based on the novel of Susan Hill of the same name is dark and most importantly scary in parts. The story is set in a remote village in England and on the backdrop of some really great visual it looks incredibly scary. Arthur Kipps is a young lawyer who travels to a remote village to organize a recently deceased client's papers, where he discovers the ghost of a scorned woman set on vengeance. The story is simple but interestingly the screenplay is devoid of cheap jump scares and unnecessary gore. It mostly relies on the bleak backdrop and suspense to create the scare and boy it succeeds in that. To be honest after a long time I enjoyed the scare on screen.
However the film is not completely free of the clichĂŠs of a horror film. The film picks a certain height half way through it and then takes a sudden drop. Despite it's short run time the screenplay feels a little jaded in the last half. It could have been a very good horror film but the last half and a predictably bleak ending bleeds it pretty badly. The acting department is solely dependent on Radcliffe and despite of his shortcomings he looks sincere. As I have already said that he does not look old enough for the role so his certain expressions seem artificial but still his efforts are commendable.
The film heavily relies on the blunt yet beautiful cinematography and the direction is decent from James Watkins.
All in all Woman in Black is brave as atleast it tries to walk a different path. I am going with 7 out of 10 for Woman in Black, it could have been better but even though it is not it is still a good watch.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Marvellous old-fashioned horror!
Posted : 11 years, 9 months ago on 22 July 2012 12:35
"I believe the most rational mind can play tricks in the dark."
Based on the 1980s novel of the same name by Susan Hill, The Woman in Black is one of the most old-fashioned horror movies in recent memory. Horror filmmakers have grown distinctly lazier in the past decade or so, relying more on cheap jump scares and/or gratuitous gore in lieu of mood, atmosphere, scares and story. Thus, a movie like The Woman in Black is particularly welcome, as it focuses on these old-fashioned characteristics. Though it does have its flaws, it reminds us that, when done well, retro-style horror can effectively raise the hairs on the back of your neck. It may be a remake (the story was previously adapted into both a long-running stage play and an ITV-produced telemovie), but screenwriter Jane Goldman (Kick-Ass, X-Men: First Class) and director James Watkins (Eden Lake) executed the picture with genuine style and flair, two things often missing in contemporary horror.
Based on the 1980s novel of the same name by Susan Hill, The Woman in Black is one of the most old-fashioned horror movies in recent memory. Horror filmmakers have grown distinctly lazier in the past decade or so, relying more on cheap jump scares and/or gratuitous gore in lieu of mood, atmosphere, scares and story. Thus, a movie like The Woman in Black is particularly welcome, as it focuses on these old-fashioned characteristics. Though it does have its flaws, it reminds us that, when done well, retro-style horror can effectively raise the hairs on the back of your neck. It may be a remake (the story was previously adapted into both a long-running stage play and an ITV-produced telemovie), but screenwriter Jane Goldman (Kick-Ass, X-Men: First Class) and director James Watkins (Eden Lake) executed the picture with genuine style and flair, two things often missing in contemporary horror.
With bills mounting and his job dangling in the balance, widowed lawyer Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) is compelled to leave his young son Joseph (Handley) to travel to an isolated village to finalise the estate of a recently-deceased woman. Travelling to the dilapidated Eel Marsh House, Arthur soon encounters a malevolent spirit known as The Woman in Black, who haunts the enormous mansion and has the local townsfolk gripped in fear. Despite the apparitions - and despite constant hostility from the villagers - Arthur continues to work towards completing his assignment with help from the sympathetic Samuel Daily (Hinds). But local children begin to die in horrific ways, and Arthur is continually tormented by ghostly sights and sounds within Eel Marsh, forcing the young lawyer to search for a way to appease the ghost and break the curse before his own son travels to visit him in a matter of days.
Produced by the iconic Hammer Films (a British company renowned for their classic chillers), The Woman in Black is a throwback horror experience in many respects. With its 1800s setting, foggy locations and creepy set design, the filmmakers visibly looked to recapture the lost art of the ghost story. It's not entirely successful, though, as the picture gets off to a rocky start. For the first half or so, there are no genuine scares; only cheap, lazy jump scares underscored by loud noises and music. As the second half kicks in, though, The Woman in Black truly takes off - it builds momentum, it becomes genuinely terrifying, and the story develops into something satisfying and even somewhat touching, culminating with a memorable final scene.
Even at its worst, The Woman in Black is insanely atmospheric. As time goes by, you get the sense that Eel Marsh House is genuinely haunted and that ghosts are everywhere. As a result, you don't feel safe, and that's a huge achievement in the realm of PG-13 horror. The camerawork must also be commended. Most horror films are simplistic in their cinematography, but the shot composition and editing here is artistic and skilful. The haunted house is a marvel of production design due to its intricacies, with scary-looking dolls, creepy wind-up toys, old-fashioned furniture and kitschy wallpaper, all of which are coated in dust and cobwebs. Thankfully, none of these details are wasted, as cinematographer Tim Maurice-Jones and director Watkins use magnificent wide shots and well-judged cutaways to give us an atmospheric sense of time and place. Scenes at night are lit only by flickering candlelight, which instils a sense of trepidation due to the frame's dimness and abundance of shadows. Furthermore, Watkins' crew clearly understood the importance of sound in a horror film, as the sound design is skilfully multilayered and Marco Beltrami's superlative score is incredibly intense.
Throughout his decade-long tenure as the titular boy wizard in the Harry Potter franchise, Daniel Radcliffe rarely featured in movies outside of the series, instead spending most of his spare time doing live theatre. The Woman in Black is Radcliffe's first film since the final Harry Potter movie, and his engaging performance here demonstrates that the actor may have a big-screen career ahead of him post-Hogwarts. His acting is strong across the board; Radcliffe sells Arthur's love for his son, determination to be successful at his job, and terror when the titular ghost taunts him. The other main player here is CiarĂĄn Hinds as Samuel Daily. A strong character actor, Hinds is terrific in the role, both engaging and amiable.
Remake or not, The Woman in Black is a mostly successful supernatural thriller which achieves what it set out to accomplish. It's not a masterpiece, nor is it the best ghost story ever made, but it's one of the purest, most immersive and most effective old-fashioned thrillers in years (right alongside Insidious). Furthermore, it will likely stay with you after the credits have rolled, as the bone-chilling images here are not easily forgettable and there are numerous harrowing moments.
7.3/10
0 comments, Reply to this entry
The Woman In Black review
Posted : 11 years, 11 months ago on 7 May 2012 10:35
It is a nice thrilling movie to watch but has got an unexpected climax at the end, I liked it.
Daniel Radcliffe has taken the role of a lawyer and has mastered in it. Though the movie starts off slowly it grows interestingly. HE discovers the ghost of a women taking revenge on the death of her son.
The women takes the life of innocent children whomever she notices. Daniel tries to find a solution for the problem by helping the women but it goes in vain.
Daniel Radcliffe has taken the role of a lawyer and has mastered in it. Though the movie starts off slowly it grows interestingly. HE discovers the ghost of a women taking revenge on the death of her son.
The women takes the life of innocent children whomever she notices. Daniel tries to find a solution for the problem by helping the women but it goes in vain.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
A terrifyingly fun, original horror film!
Posted : 12 years, 1 month ago on 12 March 2012 02:31
Following the epic conclusion in Harry Potter franchise last summer and being Daniel Radcliffeâs first leading role since finishing what made him a young star, The Woman In Black was already going to very quickly gain a wide capacity of viewers! Plus, because the film is part of a genre thatâs different for Dan and many out there at his age love the horror genre, expectations were high. Unfortunately, Dan will always be recognised as Harry Potter but despite that, he manages to pull off a very different performance in a very haunting and intense film that will undoubtedly leave you on the edge of your seat from start to finish.
The identical similarities from other films that The Woman In Black bestows are the vintage eerie and dark backgrounds as part of not only the horror genre, but set within the Edwardian and Victorian eras. These concepts are where The Woman In Black is partially linked with references from 1922 silent horror Nosferatu and particularly Tim Burtonâs Sleepy Hollow. Plus, The Woman In Black provides characteristics about the true nature of horror and suspense that we rarely see in this current generation. This basically means that the film focuses more on the on-going suspense and slow anticipation thatâll shake the audience rather than using the other âscaryâ technique: firing tons of blood and guts on the screen.
Having never fully blown us away out of all eight films as Harry Potter, Daniel Radcliffe became an almost entirely different actor in The Woman In Black! His performance was very impressive as Arthur Kipps, sold the suspenseful scenes and has transformed from boy into man. However, there was a sense of innocence about him that will most likely always be there. He perhaps looked a bit too young for such a mature character especially when the majority of his fellow supporting actors are middle-aged. Danâs performance provides a rare but unique difference between appearing as a character and performing as a character. Whatâs meant by this is that considering 21 year old Dan still looks very young for a character who sounds more in his 30s; he adds the suspenseful and terrifying aspects that mix the innocence of victims and the psychologically ruthless terror of ghosts and demons.
As far as supporting cast are concerned, Misha Handley, Radcliffeâs real-life godson, portrays his on-screen son, Joseph Kipps. We donât see much of Handley in the film, but when we do, he is your typical innocent and cute little child whoâs just stuck in a horror film. CiarĂĄn Hinds who portrayed Aberforth Dumbledore in Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part II had briefly worked with Daniel Radcliffe before. Admittedly, a lawyer who looks like a teenager and a middle-aged man in solving a mystery may be the most unorthodox relationship in a film, but because Danâs portrayal was splendid and Hindsâ character Sam Daily was almost like an elder brother and close friend figure, they connected well together. Academy Award nominee Janet McTeerâs portrayal of Elizabeth Daily was brilliant and Liz Whiteâs mild but crucial appearance made The Woman In Black an even more terrifying experience.
James Watkins makes only his second film in his career after 2008 horror hit Eden Lake, but has been a producer of other horrors and thrillers - My Little Eye, Gone and The Descent: Part 2. With the experiences of horror films under his belt, Watkins makes a film that provides the true meaning of horror and suspense which we donât see very often anymore. Particularly the scenes within the large mansion, we are literally entered into this ghostly world that keeps a firm hold on us! He even makes various artefacts in houses scary to even look at in the film, such as the rocking chair and the bed. So, making objects scary is odd but it is saying something! Screenwriter Jane Goldman has spent her career writing with mostly Matthew Vaughn (X-Men: First Class, Kick-Ass, The Debt and Stardust), but now she writes a script alone for the first time. Having served as a great screenwriting partner for Vaughn, she proves that she can write her own scripts too.
Overall, The Woman In Black is an intense, nail-biting ride that provides all what it is meant to: terrify its audiences and make them jump! Daniel Radcliffe suited the horror genre and was very good, but to avoid not always been referred to as Harry Potter, heâll have to collaborate with an even stronger director, a more creative script and more solid character. Many horrors are displayed as something thatâs disturbing enough to lead to nightmares but regarding The Woman In Black, itâs a film that one can enjoy because itâs scary to watch!
The identical similarities from other films that The Woman In Black bestows are the vintage eerie and dark backgrounds as part of not only the horror genre, but set within the Edwardian and Victorian eras. These concepts are where The Woman In Black is partially linked with references from 1922 silent horror Nosferatu and particularly Tim Burtonâs Sleepy Hollow. Plus, The Woman In Black provides characteristics about the true nature of horror and suspense that we rarely see in this current generation. This basically means that the film focuses more on the on-going suspense and slow anticipation thatâll shake the audience rather than using the other âscaryâ technique: firing tons of blood and guts on the screen.
Having never fully blown us away out of all eight films as Harry Potter, Daniel Radcliffe became an almost entirely different actor in The Woman In Black! His performance was very impressive as Arthur Kipps, sold the suspenseful scenes and has transformed from boy into man. However, there was a sense of innocence about him that will most likely always be there. He perhaps looked a bit too young for such a mature character especially when the majority of his fellow supporting actors are middle-aged. Danâs performance provides a rare but unique difference between appearing as a character and performing as a character. Whatâs meant by this is that considering 21 year old Dan still looks very young for a character who sounds more in his 30s; he adds the suspenseful and terrifying aspects that mix the innocence of victims and the psychologically ruthless terror of ghosts and demons.
As far as supporting cast are concerned, Misha Handley, Radcliffeâs real-life godson, portrays his on-screen son, Joseph Kipps. We donât see much of Handley in the film, but when we do, he is your typical innocent and cute little child whoâs just stuck in a horror film. CiarĂĄn Hinds who portrayed Aberforth Dumbledore in Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part II had briefly worked with Daniel Radcliffe before. Admittedly, a lawyer who looks like a teenager and a middle-aged man in solving a mystery may be the most unorthodox relationship in a film, but because Danâs portrayal was splendid and Hindsâ character Sam Daily was almost like an elder brother and close friend figure, they connected well together. Academy Award nominee Janet McTeerâs portrayal of Elizabeth Daily was brilliant and Liz Whiteâs mild but crucial appearance made The Woman In Black an even more terrifying experience.
James Watkins makes only his second film in his career after 2008 horror hit Eden Lake, but has been a producer of other horrors and thrillers - My Little Eye, Gone and The Descent: Part 2. With the experiences of horror films under his belt, Watkins makes a film that provides the true meaning of horror and suspense which we donât see very often anymore. Particularly the scenes within the large mansion, we are literally entered into this ghostly world that keeps a firm hold on us! He even makes various artefacts in houses scary to even look at in the film, such as the rocking chair and the bed. So, making objects scary is odd but it is saying something! Screenwriter Jane Goldman has spent her career writing with mostly Matthew Vaughn (X-Men: First Class, Kick-Ass, The Debt and Stardust), but now she writes a script alone for the first time. Having served as a great screenwriting partner for Vaughn, she proves that she can write her own scripts too.
Overall, The Woman In Black is an intense, nail-biting ride that provides all what it is meant to: terrify its audiences and make them jump! Daniel Radcliffe suited the horror genre and was very good, but to avoid not always been referred to as Harry Potter, heâll have to collaborate with an even stronger director, a more creative script and more solid character. Many horrors are displayed as something thatâs disturbing enough to lead to nightmares but regarding The Woman In Black, itâs a film that one can enjoy because itâs scary to watch!
0 comments, Reply to this entry
The Woman In Black review
Posted : 12 years, 1 month ago on 2 March 2012 06:24
I generally avoid watching horror movies because frankly I just don't have the guts! But I made an exception and watched this one on my friend's insistence. Yeah it scared me alright but not in a "oh-my-god-I-need-my-mommy" kinda way. So 5/10 for this one.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
The Woman In Black review
Posted : 12 years, 2 months ago on 17 February 2012 10:30
I was more than pleasantly surprised by this adaptation of Susan Hill's iconic ghost story.
I wasn't expecting much to be honest. I feel that the haunted house genre has, for lack of a better phrase, died a horrible death in the movie industry. Too much focus is placed on special effects, twist endings or convoluted "is it all in their minds?" storylines (see Shutter Island, The Haunting remake and The Others).
Also, having read the book and seen the stage play, I was concerned that the film wouldn't do the source material justice. And, as much as I am a big fan of Daniel Radcliffe, I worried that he wouldn't be able to be the strong anchor the story needs, as his acting ability has been somewhat questionable in the past (especially when it comes to grief and sadness).
But all these fears were unwarranted. The Woman In Black is a well told, well shot and well balanced film.
Firstly, Radcliffe. He not only looks amazing (it had to be said) but he delivers a gently nuanced performance. The opening introduction to his Arthur Kipps, where he mourns his dead wife, is subtle and heartfelt, his grief showing in waves, as well as his love for his son. But where Radcliffe really comes into his own is when he reaches Eel Marsh House and starts experiencing the unusual. There is little dialogue but his face conveys a wide range of emotions - determination, curiosity, fear, horror. Most of it is in his incredible eyes, and the director makes the most of this by using lingering close ups on his face, thereby capturing this performance. His age is not a problem as many feared it would be. He is believably 25-ish and easily passes as a young widower and father.
The supporting cast is also strong. Ciaran Hinds offers great ballast to Radcliffeâs gentle performance, and the various villagers (including a fine Simon Dooley), are believable as scared superstitious locals.
The film is beautiful to behold. Eel Marsh House is deliciously creepy and handsome, covered in vines and wreathed in mist. The expansive shots of the marsh as Kipps travels across it, and especially as it covers over with the tide, are heaped in isolation and bleakness. The moments when Kipps ventures into the mist and is surrounded by it are claustrophobic and chilling.
The scenes of the actual haunting are mostly well done and although they do rely heavily on jump moments, they successfully ramp up the tension via prolonged shots and silence to have you nervous and frightened. The use of edge of frames and background scenes to deliver scares really work, especially with the deep shadows and muted colours used throughout.
As the action increases towards the end, a little CGI does come into play and ever-so-slightly spoils the film, but thankfully it is quite brief and not too disparate with the tone of the film. At the very least, they still made me jump and cower on my partnerâs shoulder!
To conclude, an enjoyable and successfully creepy ghost story in the traditional sense, proving that Daniel Radcliffe certainly has a lot more to offer than just Harry Potter. And a vast improvement on Eden Lake for the director James Watkins. Hopefully weâll see more well-made horror from him in the future.
I wasn't expecting much to be honest. I feel that the haunted house genre has, for lack of a better phrase, died a horrible death in the movie industry. Too much focus is placed on special effects, twist endings or convoluted "is it all in their minds?" storylines (see Shutter Island, The Haunting remake and The Others).
Also, having read the book and seen the stage play, I was concerned that the film wouldn't do the source material justice. And, as much as I am a big fan of Daniel Radcliffe, I worried that he wouldn't be able to be the strong anchor the story needs, as his acting ability has been somewhat questionable in the past (especially when it comes to grief and sadness).
But all these fears were unwarranted. The Woman In Black is a well told, well shot and well balanced film.
Firstly, Radcliffe. He not only looks amazing (it had to be said) but he delivers a gently nuanced performance. The opening introduction to his Arthur Kipps, where he mourns his dead wife, is subtle and heartfelt, his grief showing in waves, as well as his love for his son. But where Radcliffe really comes into his own is when he reaches Eel Marsh House and starts experiencing the unusual. There is little dialogue but his face conveys a wide range of emotions - determination, curiosity, fear, horror. Most of it is in his incredible eyes, and the director makes the most of this by using lingering close ups on his face, thereby capturing this performance. His age is not a problem as many feared it would be. He is believably 25-ish and easily passes as a young widower and father.
The supporting cast is also strong. Ciaran Hinds offers great ballast to Radcliffeâs gentle performance, and the various villagers (including a fine Simon Dooley), are believable as scared superstitious locals.
The film is beautiful to behold. Eel Marsh House is deliciously creepy and handsome, covered in vines and wreathed in mist. The expansive shots of the marsh as Kipps travels across it, and especially as it covers over with the tide, are heaped in isolation and bleakness. The moments when Kipps ventures into the mist and is surrounded by it are claustrophobic and chilling.
The scenes of the actual haunting are mostly well done and although they do rely heavily on jump moments, they successfully ramp up the tension via prolonged shots and silence to have you nervous and frightened. The use of edge of frames and background scenes to deliver scares really work, especially with the deep shadows and muted colours used throughout.
As the action increases towards the end, a little CGI does come into play and ever-so-slightly spoils the film, but thankfully it is quite brief and not too disparate with the tone of the film. At the very least, they still made me jump and cower on my partnerâs shoulder!
To conclude, an enjoyable and successfully creepy ghost story in the traditional sense, proving that Daniel Radcliffe certainly has a lot more to offer than just Harry Potter. And a vast improvement on Eden Lake for the director James Watkins. Hopefully weâll see more well-made horror from him in the future.
0 comments, Reply to this entry